DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002057620-0006

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-12-07

R1472/2019-3

Contested design: 002057620-0006

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

WIDMANN S.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Viale dell'Industria 3/C, 20020 Busto Garolfo (MI), Italy

Represented by

Beiten Burkhardt

Holder · RCD owner

Worldwide Dynasty Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

20630 Superior Street, Chatsworth California 91311, United States of America

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

glasses with moustache pendant

randommization.com / trashed-ideas.net 'Black Handlebar Mustache Sunglasses' · randommization.com and trashed-ideas.net · disclosed 2011-09-17

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(a)Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that the relevant Internet evidence was unreliable or qualified as its own grace-period disclosure, and that the costume-mask design differed from the cited fashion accessory products.
  • The invalidity applicant argued that prior design D1 was clearly published online before the priority date and that the contested RCD reproduced its essential arbitrary features.
  • The Board started from D1 rather than D7 because D1 showed the chain clearly, rejected the Article 7(2) self-disclosure argument, and accepted the Internet printouts as sufficient proof of disclosure.
  • Comparing the frontal features, the Board found the same overall impression and dismissed the appeal, leaving the RCD invalid.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5